- Joined
- Apr 17, 2014
- Messages
- 8,713
- Reaction score
- 7,064
Still not answering the question. Tell me who you think is buying bonds, and what type of bonds do you think they are buying?
Social Security to run out in 17 years
- Thread starter mb23100
- Start date
Still not answering the question. Tell me who you think is buying bonds, and what type of bonds do you think they are buying?
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2015
- Messages
- 21,164
- Reaction score
- 4,683
In both cases, the tax payer -- you -- funds the bonds. So, only an idiot would care about the distinction in accounting terms. It's just mumbo jumbo for autists to think they're smart when using the lingo.
- Joined
- May 13, 2017
- Messages
- 864
- Reaction score
- 0
What does that have to do with a pay-as-you-go system or a monetarily sovereign nation? Can you answer that?
Take a break. You are wrong. I wrote my Masters thesis on social security and privatization (I go back to the days of Archer Shaw and that boondoggle bill) and you are merely mouthing the nonsense put forth by Pete Peterson et al.
In other words, you don't know what you're talking about, you're arguing emotionally. Typical for a right winger.
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2004
- Messages
- 95,963
- Reaction score
- 35,164
That's something you can just look up and isn't relevant to the discussion.
Against my better judgment, I'll take another stab and trying to get past your disability. When the SSA collects excess payments (more than are needed to fund current-year SS spending), the excess payments are invested in special bonds. What that means is that the money goes to the general fund in return for an obligation from the general fund for future payments. So that future obligation cannot be "raided" for any particular spending, by definition (the closest thing to raiding you could have would be if the future obligations were transferred to the general fund but that hasn't happened).
There is a legal separation. But if you want to consider all of the receipts and spending as being connected (which you can), there's no funding shortfall specific to SS.
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2008
- Messages
- 7,441
- Reaction score
- 339
Nobody is saying the bonds are not funded, and I'm honestly unsure as to how you reached that point.
Any discussion is framed on a set of premises. Jack was simply arguing that you don't get to pick and choose what those premises are because a lot of them are mutually exclusive.
It may sound self indulgent to you, but like I said, that only illustrates your ignorancy on the subject matter. Framing the debate means being able to identify that whe problem is, and how you can fix it. If you don't take a step back and frame the discussion on whether SS is part of the government or not, any arguments made in it are meaningless.
I am sorry, but discussing government accounting means using accounting terms. If you're unfamiliar with them (and that's OK if you are), I suggest you take the time to learn them (it's really not that complicated) and not just assume anyone using them is trying to trick you.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2010
- Messages
- 30,798
- Reaction score
- 7,626
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2004
- Messages
- 95,963
- Reaction score
- 35,164
Wait... Aren't the SS reserves kept in the form of gold bars in Fort Knox??
The guy twice used this quote:
"I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3 if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it."
as if he thinks it supports his point. Like, his understanding is exactly in line with your joke--that the SS trust fund means that there is an underground store of cash that can be used if Congress refuses to disperse funds, and Obama's statement should have been, "sorry SS recipients--we're going to have to pay you in cash this month. Might take a while to count it all out, though."
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2014
- Messages
- 8,713
- Reaction score
- 7,064
Of course it's relevant to the discussion. You made the claim that the money is all there, that it's just being invested in bonds. Since you made the claim, you have to back it up. It's not a difficult question. Who do you think is buying bonds, and what kind of bonds are they buying?
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2014
- Messages
- 8,713
- Reaction score
- 7,064
LOL. What school vomited you out? I think a transcript of this conversation might entitle you to a refund on your degree.
How basic laws of economics can elude a self-professed expert is beyond me.
What do you think happens to the money that is paid into social security by taxpayers? Do you think it goes into a vault somewhere? Where do you think this money goes?
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2004
- Messages
- 95,963
- Reaction score
- 35,164
@ultramanhyata, see?
Dude, I never made the claim that "the money is all there." The money is exchanged for bonds. You don't keep cash when you buy something.
Starman to his kid: Hey, I sent you to the store with $5 to buy milk!
Kid: Yeah.
Starman: So where's the money?
Kid: I used it to buy milk.
Starman: I see the milk, but where is the money?! Where's my fucking money!!
Kid: I had to give it to the cashier so he'd give me the milk.
Starman: WTF? You let the cashier raid our milk fund! What is wrong with you?!?!?
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2010
- Messages
- 30,798
- Reaction score
- 7,626
OK, I'm legit starting to feel sorry for Starman now. Enough is enough.
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2015
- Messages
- 21,164
- Reaction score
- 4,683
.. I was being an asshole sorry
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2004
- Messages
- 95,963
- Reaction score
- 35,164
It's always funny when people try to pull this. Your inability to grasp the issue is *worse* if you claim to have credentials that would create a reasonable expectation that you could grasp it.
The program is funded through a dedicated tax. The tax overcollects, and then the surplus is invested in bonds. So it's not funded by any kind of trick; it's funded by tax collections. And, as it overcollects, future funding comes from future gov't obligations. This is a standard debt contract.
I've already said you can look at SS tax collections and payments as part of the general fund, but then there's no SS-specific shortfall (and legally, that's not how it works--there is a real legal issue if the trust fund runs out). How could there be?
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2014
- Messages
- 8,713
- Reaction score
- 7,064
I love the continued stealth calls for assistance. It's the second time you've done it. It's amusing to see it from coming from a guy who is so obviously trying to sell a superior intellect.
You said the "excess payments" were invested in special bonds. Where do you think the rest of the money goes?
Hack Savage said:
Again, who is buying the bonds, and which bonds are you referring to?
That of course is entirely inaccurate. A more exact parallel would be if I gave my son $100 to go fill a prescription for his grandmother, but he came home with some aspirin, lemon heads, and Metal Gear Solid V.
The federal government has repeatedly raided social security to pay for other entitlements. It has been reported by media left, center, and right. Are all these sources wrong?
What Happened to the $2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/merril...lion-social-security-trust-fund/#71b912e34947
What About the Trust Fund?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304521304576446250270069780
House Budget Robs Social Security for Welfare Payments
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...budget-robs-social-security-welfare-payments/
Government Owes $2.7 Trillion to Social Security
https://www.fedsmith.com/2013/05/23/government-owes-2-7-trillion-to-social-security/
It's even been admitted by your so-called scandal free president. The funds aren't there.
This is why when Congress was having that huge battle in 2011 over raising the debt ceiling, President Obama said this about social security: "I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3 if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it."
Where do you think the money went? To bonds? What bonds? Who do you think is buying bonds, and which bonds do you think they are buying?
- Joined
- May 13, 2017
- Messages
- 864
- Reaction score
- 0
It's a pay-as-you-go system. Jesus Christ you sound like a Trump University student.
And I am an expert on Social Security. You are not. You do not even grasp the fundamentals of the program.
I bet you're a Ron Paul fan.
The sad part is that you really do not comprehend the funding apparatus of Social Security.
https://www.nasi.org/learn/socialsecurity/overview
You have big mouth. And you don't know when to shut it.
- Joined
- May 13, 2017
- Messages
- 864
- Reaction score
- 0
Dumbass, I'm sorry, I mean Star Man....the trust is just a fucking trust. If there is residue from the payroll tax it stays in the trust until paid.
- Joined
- May 13, 2017
- Messages
- 864
- Reaction score
- 0
You do realize that Star Man and other right wing ideologues are damn near immune to rational informed debate and that there's nothing you can do change his mind outside of triggering some once-in-a-lifetime epiphany for him.
Guys like him are a dime a dozen. They have the emotional prejudices wrought from their craven authoritarian fear and they seek out narratives to support those prejudices. Thus the solidarity (with the Other) engendered by SS is evil, a swindle, a ponzi scheme and anything else damaging the rational world.
I'm here bc I enjoy the laughs from slapping these dopes around.
Did you see Bruce Jenner might run for Senate?....that is the legacy of Reagan (actor), Bush(dolt) and Trump (conman)....if they can hold office, anyone can.
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2004
- Messages
- 95,963
- Reaction score
- 35,164
I definitely recognize that Starman is a bad job.
Maybe having a Republican tranny senator will help them improve their ability to empathize. Senators mostly just vote with their party anyway. A shitty one won't contribute to the national discussion or provide any policy innovation, but they can't do much damage either.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2014
- Messages
- 8,713
- Reaction score
- 7,064
It hasn't been "pay as you go" since 1983. (Not that it ever really was pay as you go. The first recipients of social security contributed little or nothing into the system.)
And why are you getting so emotional? If you're an expert, as you claim, how can you not understand what is going on? The money isn't staying in a trust. It isn't being invested. It is being spent on other entitlements.
This is why when Congress was having that huge battle in 2011 over raising the debt ceiling, President Obama said this about social security: "I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3 if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it."
What Happened to the $2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/merril...lion-social-security-trust-fund/#71b912e34947
What About the Trust Fund?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304521304576446250270069780
House Budget Robs Social Security for Welfare Payments
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...budget-robs-social-security-welfare-payments/
Government Owes $2.7 Trillion to Social Security
https://www.fedsmith.com/2013/05/23/government-owes-2-7-trillion-to-social-security/
You can continue to insult me and claim you're an expert, but neither you nor Hack Savage have even once even attempted to disprove what everyone, on the left or right, already knows: Social Security is in trouble because the money just isn't there. It isn't there because it was used on welfare and many other entitlements.
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2015
- Messages
- 9,187
- Reaction score
- 4,211
Good fucking luck.
He argued with me for 5 pages in another thread that Earned Income Credit "only results in people keeping more of what they earned" - arrogantly insisting that it is a deduction, rather than a paid credit. I literally cannot understand how someone could be so wrong, but continue to insist that they are correct.
